(01-06-2018, 10:08 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As or haves and have nots they have existed in every society. Liberty necessitates inequality BECAUSE equality is the polar opposite of liberty. As the 20th century has proved, any move toward "equality" at the expense of liberty leads to an equality of the lowest common denominator. Socialism makes everyone equally poor, equally hungry, equally naked and equally ignorant.

Socialists and modern liberals tend to be envy driven lifeforms who would prefer that everyone is equally miserable. That is paradise to someone like Eric the Obtuse.

Oh no, no, not at all. I just want YOU to be miserable! That would be paradise to me.

You did actually view the video, I assume. I can't list the number of misquoted statistics he used, because it was virtually the entire video. He started by correlating high-freedom states with high income and low poverty. True, but those included the Scandinavian nations he was slamming. It goes downhill from there.

So SNIP back at ya!

Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.

(01-09-2018, 11:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: Remember, it was you who was the Marxist. In fact, it was only you, if I remember the positions of the many posters to this board and its antecedent.

And your point is what exactly, Mr. Horn? You do realize that intelligent people typically change their positions when their current ones are no longer suitable, right? I mean what would you call someone who does the same thing over and over and expects different results? I can only think of two things to call such a person and neither are flattering.

Some of us recognize bunk right out of the chute. I've favored social-democracy since I was in high school ... you know, those public schools you hate so much.

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:Marxism was dead when the modern economy emerged in the 1920s.

History would disagree with you. Marxism reached its peak sometime in the 1940s. Marxism-Leninism in particular is an outgrowth of the matieral conditions of rapidly industrializing states--a la the USSR, and PRC.

The death began in the '20s. It took decades for it to kill the host country. Credit to Deng Xiaoping for seeing the death rattles before they became toxic, so China survived but is MINO.

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:It's even less relevant today.

I agree, but only because except in especially backward sates most countries have at least some light industry or the income to buy goods cheaply from the World's Sweatshops (China and India respectively). By and large the growing industries are involved with information technology and the outgrowths of those technologies. In short Marxism has become less relevant because the material conditions changed. Interestingly this is the same reason why I walked away from Marxism after having been a Marxist-Leninist for a quarter century.

Marxism assumes large labor inputs to generate specific material outputs. Modern industrial techniques started to kill that idea in the 1920s, at least it did in countries that had that technology and employed it.

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:A bigger question: what replaces capitalism when AI replaces human work? I know I won't live to see it, but it's coming. Under that model, libertarianism will devolve to the rule of the mob or absolute autocracy. I'll bet on the latter.

What odds are you giving because I'm willing to take that bet. I by no means believe that industrial capitalism is a permanent fixture in human society but the idea that automation and AI will completely replace human labor entirely is absurd. Automation has been happening since the start of the industrial revolution and so far capitalism not only out competed Marxist Socialism, but as the video in my previous post demonstrates it even out competes so-called democratic socialism.

Give it 50 years, and the work will be complete. Although you can't remember life 50 years ago, I can. Everything was still human input. Computers were room-sized boxes that did computations at a snail's pace by today's standards, and were uncommon to boot. The first automation (Computer Numerical Control) didn't even start for another 10 years, and it was primitive. With today's pace of change, 50 years may be a pessimistic guess.

Kinser Wrote:Furthermore more people in the 20th century have died as a result of governmental action than from anything else. So given the choice between a huge all-powerful state and society being run by a biker gang, I'll take the biker gang. At least the drugs will be good.

OK, but so what? Are you suggesting that anarcho-whatever will prevail and government will disappear? Not a chance. When it shrinks, it just becomes an appendage of private interests ... who can grow it if they need it.

Kinser Wrote:So how many bitcoin are we wagering...I take gold, silver and platinum also. You can keep your paper though. I only take bets with items of intrinsic value.

I don't place bets I won't live long enough to collect, but I think my case is strong.

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:As a social system, neither is acceptable, so some advanced planning is in order.

The USSR had advanced planning. People stood in line for hours for potatoes. While I think a lack of computing power did play a part (as I've referenced Toward a New Socialism by Paul Cockshot numerous times on the old forum and even a few times here) that is not the whole story. Command economies have great difficulties with calculating price and correctly allocating resources and labor. Simply put cats cannot swim the Atlantic Ocean.

Wrong kind of planning. The planning that's needed is contingent not directive. Since no one can predict the future with true accuracy, it's more than just wise to have a few optional chess moves figured-out. Having options beats, "Oh shit, what now?"

Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.

You did actually view the video, I assume. I can't list the number of misquoted statistics he used, because it was virtually the entire video. He started by correlating high-freedom states with high income and low poverty. True, but those included the Scandinavian nations he was slamming. It goes downhill from there.

So SNIP back at ya!

Of course I viewed it. I also reviewed the statistics too. Stefan has nothing to fear from statistics since he always attempts to speak the truth. But it is good to see that you're learning posting tactics from Eric the Ignoramus. Maybe someday you'll make it to my concptual ignore list--assuming this forum makes it that much longer.

I'm starting to feel that like All My Children it has had its decades long run and is more or less over. Or perhaps it just seems that way since most of the threads I'm in seem like the same tired arguments from the same tired people on the same tired topics.

(01-10-2018, 02:33 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-09-2018, 09:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(01-09-2018, 11:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: Remember, it was you who was the Marxist. In fact, it was only you, if I remember the positions of the many posters to this board and its antecedent.

And your point is what exactly, Mr. Horn? You do realize that intelligent people typically change their positions when their current ones are no longer suitable, right? I mean what would you call someone who does the same thing over and over and expects different results? I can only think of two things to call such a person and neither are flattering.

Some of us recognize bunk right out of the chute. I've favored social-democracy since I was in high school ... you know, those public schools you hate so much.

Perhaps you should talk to someone intimately involved with the public school system. If you think I hate them you should talk to my husband who is a guard...er...I mean teacher at a child prison...er...I mean public school. Surely you remember the time I told posted about how I was bored by his principle at a social event going on about how great it was that the state provided them with new razor wire fences.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:Marxism was dead when the modern economy emerged in the 1920s.

History would disagree with you. Marxism reached its peak sometime in the 1940s. Marxism-Leninism in particular is an outgrowth of the matieral conditions of rapidly industrializing states--a la the USSR, and PRC.

The death began in the '20s. It took decades for it to kill the host country. Credit to Deng Xiaoping for seeing the death rattles before they became toxic, so China survived but is MINO.

By and large China is pretty much capitalist these days--and I mean capitalist to the point of Pre-New Deal America. Having read Deng, I don't think that was due to any dazzling insight of his and more of he lacked Mao's personality (and cult of personality) and ruthlessness so in order to maintain power he had to dramatically improve living standards to keep the people out of the streets and he wasn't too interested in whether cats were white or black provided they caught him mice.

It seems to me that enforcing a Marxist Socialist paradigm is incredibly dependent on who the leader is. The USSR started declining after Stalin died (or was murdered, there is some debate around his death). China which was already somewhat revisionist to start with accelerated with revisionism and even complete replacement with capitalism after Mao died. Albania had a counter revolution as soon as Hoxha was dead.

I'm unsure that the DPRK ever reached socialist construction. I know that Vietnam, Laos and Cuba never even attempted to construct socialism.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:It's even less relevant today.

I agree, but only because except in especially backward sates most countries have at least some light industry or the income to buy goods cheaply from the World's Sweatshops (China and India respectively). By and large the growing industries are involved with information technology and the outgrowths of those technologies. In short Marxism has become less relevant because the material conditions changed. Interestingly this is the same reason why I walked away from Marxism after having been a Marxist-Leninist for a quarter century.

Marxism assumes large labor inputs to generate specific material outputs. Modern industrial techniques started to kill that idea in the 1920s, at least it did in countries that had that technology and employed it.

LOL. I don't know if this is a result of profound ignorance of Marx's economic works or a lack of understanding what the words "material conditions" means.

The assumption of large labor inputs to generate any output necessitates that there is no technological progress in any given society. Provided that a capitalist state exists somewhere, that is an impossibility because for all its rhetoric Marxist economies simply cannot revolutionize production at nearly the speed capitalism can and does.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:A bigger question: what replaces capitalism when AI replaces human work? I know I won't live to see it, but it's coming. Under that model, libertarianism will devolve to the rule of the mob or absolute autocracy. I'll bet on the latter.

What odds are you giving because I'm willing to take that bet. I by no means believe that industrial capitalism is a permanent fixture in human society but the idea that automation and AI will completely replace human labor entirely is absurd. Automation has been happening since the start of the industrial revolution and so far capitalism not only out competed Marxist Socialism, but as the video in my previous post demonstrates it even out competes so-called democratic socialism.

Give it 50 years, and the work will be complete. Although you can't remember life 50 years ago, I can. Everything was still human input. Computers were room-sized boxes that did computations at a snail's pace by today's standards, and were uncommon to boot. The first automation (Computer Numerical Control) didn't even start for another 10 years, and it was primitive. With today's pace of change, 50 years may be a pessimistic guess.

Completely irrelevant. 150 years ago everyone needed buggy whips for their horse. The car automated transportation. Did this put buggy whip manufacturers out of business? Sure. Did it destroy the basis of economics? No. Those persons formerly employeed making buggy whips found jobs elsewhere. Just like large numbers of workers replaced by machines in farming and manufacturing are finding jobs elsewhere.

I'm willing to venture that automation to the point that human production is completely obsolete is impossible. That is a bet I'm willing to make on a time scale of 50 years, 100 years or even 1000 years.

Though I noticed that you picked 50 years. Did you do that because you'd almost certainly be dead whereas I'd have a decent chance of being a live? I mean I'd be in my late 80s and probably would have difficulty remembering my own name, but I'd probably still be consuming food, water and oxygen.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:Furthermore more people in the 20th century have died as a result of governmental action than from anything else. So given the choice between a huge all-powerful state and society being run by a biker gang, I'll take the biker gang. At least the drugs will be good.

OK, but so what? Are you suggesting that anarcho-whatever will prevail and government will disappear? Not a chance. When it shrinks, it just becomes an appendage of private interests ... who can grow it if they need it.

Anarcho-capitalism would require the displacement of the state as a general principle of the organization of society. Like Communism, and well anarcho-anything-else it is utopian. One of the reasons why I consider myself more of a classical liberal than a strict libertarian.

That being said, the state can only become the appendage of private interests if the state is viewed as a means to an end. Private interests are only concerned with the state if it is a means to an end. For political types the state is an end in itself. It is a completely different viewpoint.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:So how many bitcoin are we wagering...I take gold, silver and platinum also. You can keep your paper though. I only take bets with items of intrinsic value.

I don't place bets I won't live long enough to collect, but I think my case is strong.

History indicates otherwise. And there is no reason to believe that barring governmental interference that the market forces will substantially change. People need food, water, shelter and in most climates clothing. The persons who produce those goods are not going to do so for free. And even those who use machines to produce those goods are not going to sell them for free. So we are always going to have a situation where Person X must do something to get money to pay Person Y for the goods he needs and wants.

Unless of course you subscribe to the absurd notion that a universal basic income is practical, which mathematically it is not. I won't even get into the moral hazards of that idea. The mathematics demonstrate its impossibility adequately enough.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:As a social system, neither is acceptable, so some advanced planning is in order.

The USSR had advanced planning. People stood in line for hours for potatoes. While I think a lack of computing power did play a part (as I've referenced Toward a New Socialism by Paul Cockshot numerous times on the old forum and even a few times here) that is not the whole story. Command economies have great difficulties with calculating price and correctly allocating resources and labor. Simply put cats cannot swim the Atlantic Ocean.

Wrong kind of planning. The planning that's needed is contingent not directive. Since no one can predict the future with true accuracy, it's more than just wise to have a few optional chess moves figured-out. Having options beats, "Oh shit, what now?"

In general, any type of centralized economic planning results in disaster. I think it far more efficient to allow the interested parties to attempt on their own to interpret price and profit on their own and adjust their plans accordingly. As those countries which practice central planning in full or in part in the past 150 years have demonstrated the greater the freedom of capital to chase profit the more efficient the national economy.

Other wise you end up with directives from economic production bureaus in Moscow demanding X Megagrams of screws, and that quota being fulfilled by screws weighing 100g each being abundant but a spare screw for Comrade X's glasses being completely absent in the country.

But you don't have to take my word for it...you could just read Hayek or Von Mises for yourself.

Glad you are feeling better Bob. Well I finally have a workable model for the S&H cycle. I submitted it for publication in Cliodynamics Journal, got it back from the reviewers, who accepted it with revisions, I made the revisions and sent it back and now am awaiting final decision.

Basically there are three cyclical phenomenon. One is the political stress index (PSI) invented by Jack Goldstone, which is mostly a function of economic inequality. This cycle affects the demand for a political restructuring, i.e. a 4T.

Another is the social contagion model, proposed by Peter Turchin, which says that radical ideologies can act as infective agents, and spread though the population like an epidemic. Turchin created a model that works on the principle that when naïve people (uninfected) contact radicals (infected) they have a chance of becoming radicalized (becoming infected). Radicals can, after a period of time, recover from the radicalization and become moderates (this is analogous to infected people recovering from the disease). The present of moderates in the population exerts a suppressive effect on radicalization (analogous to herd immunity). The level of radicalization (as forecast by the model) affects the demand for a social moment, either a 2T or a 4T.

Finally there is the S&H model. It asserts that you can't have a social moment without a political moment. But you can't have a political moment (defined exactly as a social moment except political) until a dominant generation comes to power (this is a more precise representation of the idea of the generational constellation that needs to be in place).

So you can have a period like 1919, when radicalization predicted by the social contagion model peaked, indicating maximum demand for a social moment (either a 2T or a 4T). Furthermore economic inequality had peaked in 1916 (and would peak at a slightly higher level in 1929) making PSI high (and going higher). So there was demand for a 4T specifically. The country was in a revolutionary moment, and then--the country decided that what they wanted was a "Return to Normalcy". WTF? Why did this happen? Because a recessive generation was in power and you need a political moment* to create a social moment (this is the core of S&H's contribution).

Now generations by themselves are not enough. In 1801, the Hero generation who had come of age in during the Revolution (e.g. Jefferson and Madison and their contemporaries) came to power following what Jefferson called "The Revolution of 1800". Political scientists agree with Jefferson that the 1801-1816 period was revolutionary. Nobody else does. Why? Well PSI had been falling for two decades in 1801, so there was no support for a 4T (not surprising we had just had one). The level of radicalization was also low (the peak would not be until around 1830), so there was no demand for a 2T. With no demand for either a 2T or a 4T, the political moment created by the Revolutionary Hero generation coming to power created neither, S&H record the entire era (and large portions of the non-political moments before and after) as a very long 1T, associated with a 30-year-long Transcendental generation. In other words, Jefferson's "revolution" was a snooze-fest. Many T4Ters have thought S&H got that huge generation wrong. They didn't. It worked out that way because of the way the other cycles turned out.

There is more than one cycle at work here. This is why it has been so confusing. Once you add in the social milieu in which the generations are acting, it all falls into place.

I have nothing to contribute to the thinking here, but did want to say that it's nice to read something actually about generational theory on this forum.

"But there's a difference between error and dishonesty, and it's not a trivial difference." - Ben Greenman
"Relax, it'll be all right, and by that I mean it will first get worse."
"How was I supposed to know that there'd be consequences for my actions?" - Gina Linetti

(01-11-2018, 05:52 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Glad you are feeling better Bob. Well I finally have a workable model for the S&H cycle. I submitted it for publication in Cliodynamics Journal, got it back from the reviewers, who accepted it with revisions, I made the revisions and sent it back and now am awaiting final decision.

Basically there are three cyclical phenomenon. One is the political stress index (PSI) invented by Jack Goldstone, which is mostly a function of economic inequality. This cycle affects the demand for a political restructuring, i.e. a 4T.

Another is the social contagion model, proposed by Peter Turchin, which says that radical ideologies can act as infective agents, and spread though the population like an epidemic. Turchin created a model that works on the principle that when naïve people (uninfected) contact radicals (infected) they have a chance of becoming radicalized (becoming infected). Radicals can, after a period of time, recover from the radicalization and become moderates (this is analogous to infected people recovering from the disease). The present of moderates in the population exerts a suppressive effect on radicalization (analogous to herd immunity). The level of radicalization (as forecast by the model) affects the demand for a social moment, either a 2T or a 4T.

Finally there is the S&H model. It asserts that you can't have a social moment without a political moment. But you can't have a political moment (defined exactly as a social moment except political) until a dominant generation comes to power (this is a more precise representation of the idea of the generational constellation that needs to be in place).

So you can have a period like 1919, when radicalization predicted by the social contagion model peaked, indicating maximum demand for a social moment (either a 2T or a 4T). Furthermore economic inequality had peaked in 1916 (and would peak at a slightly higher level in 1929) making PSI high (and going higher). So there was demand for a 4T specifically. The country was in a revolutionary moment, and then--the country decided that what they wanted was a "Return to Normalcy". WTF? Why did this happen? Because a recessive generation was in power and you need a political moment* to create a social moment (this is the core of S&H's contribution).

Now generations by themselves are not enough. In 1801, the Hero generation who had come of age in during the Revolution (e.g. Jefferson and Madison and their contemporaries) came to power following what Jefferson called "The Revolution of 1800". Political scientists agree with Jefferson that the 1801-1816 period was revolutionary. Nobody else does. Why? Well PSI had been falling for two decades in 1801, so there was no support for a 4T (not surprising we had just had one). The level of radicalization was also low (the peak would not be until around 1830), so there was no demand for a 2T. With no demand for either a 2T or a 4T, the political moment created by the Revolutionary Hero generation coming to power created neither, S&H record the entire era (and large portions of the non-political moments before and after) as a very long 1T, associated with a 30-year-long Transcendental generation. In other words, Jefferson's "revolution" was a snooze-fest. Many T4Ters have thought S&H got that huge generation wrong. They didn't. It worked out that way because of the way the other cycles turned out.

There is more than one cycle at work here. This is why it has been so confusing. Once you add in the social milieu in which the generations are acting, it all falls into place.

*That is the right generation(s) in place.

Good work Mike, as always. I'm not sure there are enough posters left here to appreciate your work, but I do and just wanted you to know it. Which brings us to today. Judging by the rather bizarre climate we're in, your new model may help to explain what's up and why. Have you looked at it yet?

Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.

(01-11-2018, 05:52 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Glad you are feeling better Bob. Well I finally have a workable model for the S&H cycle. I submitted it for publication in Cliodynamics Journal, got it back from the reviewers, who accepted it with revisions, I made the revisions and sent it back and now am awaiting final decision.

Basically there are three cyclical phenomenon. One is the political stress index (PSI) invented by Jack Goldstone, which is mostly a function of economic inequality. This cycle affects the demand for a political restructuring, i.e. a 4T.

Another is the social contagion model, proposed by Peter Turchin, which says that radical ideologies can act as infective agents, and spread though the population like an epidemic. Turchin created a model that works on the principle that when naïve people (uninfected) contact radicals (infected) they have a chance of becoming radicalized (becoming infected). Radicals can, after a period of time, recover from the radicalization and become moderates (this is analogous to infected people recovering from the disease). The present of moderates in the population exerts a suppressive effect on radicalization (analogous to herd immunity). The level of radicalization (as forecast by the model) affects the demand for a social moment, either a 2T or a 4T.

Finally there is the S&H model. It asserts that you can't have a social moment without a political moment. But you can't have a political moment (defined exactly as a social moment except political) until a dominant generation comes to power (this is a more precise representation of the idea of the generational constellation that needs to be in place).

So you can have a period like 1919, when radicalization predicted by the social contagion model peaked, indicating maximum demand for a social moment (either a 2T or a 4T). Furthermore economic inequality had peaked in 1916 (and would peak at a slightly higher level in 1929) making PSI high (and going higher). So there was demand for a 4T specifically. The country was in a revolutionary moment, and then--the country decided that what they wanted was a "Return to Normalcy". WTF? Why did this happen? Because a recessive generation was in power and you need a political moment* to create a social moment (this is the core of S&H's contribution).

Now generations by themselves are not enough. In 1801, the Hero generation who had come of age in during the Revolution (e.g. Jefferson and Madison and their contemporaries) came to power following what Jefferson called "The Revolution of 1800". Political scientists agree with Jefferson that the 1801-1816 period was revolutionary. Nobody else does. Why? Well PSI had been falling for two decades in 1801, so there was no support for a 4T (not surprising we had just had one). The level of radicalization was also low (the peak would not be until around 1830), so there was no demand for a 2T. With no demand for either a 2T or a 4T, the political moment created by the Revolutionary Hero generation coming to power created neither, S&H record the entire era (and large portions of the non-political moments before and after) as a very long 1T, associated with a 30-year-long Transcendental generation. In other words, Jefferson's "revolution" was a snooze-fest. Many T4Ters have thought S&H got that huge generation wrong. They didn't. It worked out that way because of the way the other cycles turned out.

There is more than one cycle at work here. This is why it has been so confusing. Once you add in the social milieu in which the generations are acting, it all falls into place.

*That is the right generation(s) in place.

Good work Mike, as always. I'm not sure there are enough posters left here to appreciate your work, but I do and just wanted you to know it. Which brings us to today. Judging by the rather bizarre climate we're in, your new model may help to explain what's up and why. Have you looked at it yet?

Thanks. Sure. First we have a dominant generation coming to power about 2008. We can call them the "generation of '68". They came of age (i.e. turned 21) over the 1968-1983 period, which roughly corresponds to a Boomer gen born over 1946-1962 (this is just what the generational model outputs). Anyways, what the gen model forecasts is a political moment beginning around 2008. We had an election in 2008 so the political moment would begin in that year, which means 2008 should be a critical election. Past critical elections in 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896 and 1932 all feature the winning party winning at least three presidential terms in a row. The critical election of 1968 saw a six election period when the 1968 winner (Republicans) won five. This figure shows a plot that helps identify into what class 2008 should fall. The figure was made some years ago, so it contains three possibilities, (lt blue) Dems win in 2016, 2020, (red) Reps win in 2016, 2020 and (purple) Reps win in 2016 and Dems in 2020. The lit blue did not happen. Red rules out a critical election in 2008 and a political moment beginning in that year and invalidates the generational model. So if the model is valid, it predicts a Democratic victory in 2020.

A political moment can trigger a social moment if the conditions are right (as determined by the other two models) As I mentioned above, we had a political moment over 1801-1816 when the revolutionary gen was in power but no social moment.

Next is the story told by the social contagion model. This model forecasts a peak in radicalization in 2017. This means an political moment will be a social moment, we just don't know what kind yet.

For that we turn to PSI. PSI is typically high at the start of crisis-type political moments and low at the start of awakening-type ones. In 2008 PSI was of middle-value, higher than it was at the start of all three prior 2Ts and lower than it was at the start of the 3 previous 4Ts. Thus, if a political moment did begin in 2008 (which we won't know until Nov 2020) then it started right out with a configuration consistent with a 2T, but with some 4T character. We should expect a social moment with a lot of 2T-type stuff, which things like #Me Too, BLM, suggests, but also with some 4T character as the popularity of Bernie Sanders and the economic message of Donald Trump suggest.

This makes today most like the period around 100 years ago. The social contagion model peaked in 1919, economic inequality and PSI was also high (but had not been in 1896, when the 2T political moment had begun). We had all the ingredients for revolutionary change *except* for the dominant generation, who had passed from the scene in 1914, according to the generational model. And we did not get a 4T. Instead the 1896-1919 political moment maps out as a 2T. The religious event plot (see below) shows elevated activity in the teens and twenties consistent with a 2T. The era was filled with strum and drang, four constitutional amendments were passed and yet the problem of inequality (and the capitalist crisis that results for it) remained unaddressed, as demonstrated by the economic collapse in 1929-33.

100 years ago we did not have an overvalued market. Last month, S&P500 valuation reached 1929 levels. The capitalist crisis appeared around 2006, a century after its first appearance in 1907. So if we get a crash which causes the economy to crater, they will be political demand for a 4T fix. Unlike in 1919, there still is a dominant generation in power, and so it is possible that this period can still map into a 4T. If not then it will end up as a second 2T.

But -- in 2008 the President that we elect is clearly not of the Generation of '68. Bill Clinton may be, and he has terrible flaws despite getting something out of the Boom Awakening. But he was elected President in 1992, long before the Crisis began. The younger Bush seems to be little influenced by the culture of the 1960s, and Donald Trump seems to represent the worst of all worlds -- no culture, overwhelming narcissism, no religiosity, and no moral compass. If Bill Clinton is an intellectual, Donald Trump is about as anti-intellectual as the typical televangelist. No, I do not mean Fulton Sheen.

Barack Obama has his virtues, but he is no Boomer. He is as good as one can be as a pure pragmatist -- which means that he is ineffective in pushing any moral values upon people. He can do right, but he can't preach any high moral agenda. He's the sort of leader that one sees after a Crisis is over, and who has the least to gain from any Awakening Era even if he can expect to see two of them in his lifetime if he has a normal lifespan. I wanted to believe that he might pick and choose between a Millennial-like Civic personality (but he would have gotten that from GIs that he knew well) and a Boom-like Idealist personality as an echo of the Silent without the neurotic traits of the Silent or the exaggerated machismo of a Clint Eastwood, and that this might work.

Was he a failure as a President? Hardly. He could patch things up and keep the lid on some of the worst trends. But economic reality went one way, and the plutocrats that he rescued so that he could prevent a recurrence of another Great Depression saved their assets and used some of those assets to establish a reactionary politics that has come close to establishing a totalitarian order, a fascistic society with American traits. OK, Gershwin is safer than Wagner, if less profound... and I will take Samuel Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and Martin Luther King over any sun-god, Roman emperor, or Prussian monarch. I will also pass on Nebuchadnezzar, a hero of Satan Hussein and a reviled person in the Bible.

I saw a paper by Mike Alexander that suggests that PSI is really high now. The dominant people in American economic life seem to believe that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as that suffering allows unbridled indulgence, power, and privilege among the economic and bureaucratic elites... It is hard to see why such a dominant ethos can win hearts and minds. It can at its most effective break hearts and minds, but it can only do so by turning most people into victims.

The Right has shown its fix in the slogan Make America Great Again. As is my wont from such philosophical training as I have, I try to understand what any all-encompassing, vague slogan means. Was America ever better, without qualification, than it is now? OK -- it really was better for economic elites in the Gilded Age, when the few rich people could buy anything that they wanted. Who needed a fine stereo system and recorded music when one could hire musicians cheaply and organize a good band or even a symphony orchestra? I am astonished that some American plutocrat didn't imitate the House of Esterhazy in hiring a house orchestra to play for his convenience... OK, there will never be another Franz-Josef Haydn (whom I consider the most important composer of all time, without whom Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, Puccini, Bartok, and even the Beatles are impossible) who could compose so many musical masterpieces as he did. American plutocrats and their heirs could live like European nobility. What the heck? We have such families today -- the Koch and the Walton families instead of the Vanderbilt family (Anderson Cooper says that there is no remaining Vanderbilt fortune).

But as I am reminded in a book from the 1970s, the "Good old days" (then meaning the 19th century) were horrible unless one was part of the elite. This is almost 2020, and the 1920s (the last hurrah for the Gilded ethos) are even farther away than the 1890s were in the 1970s. The 1920s look awful to me now. They may have been better than the 1890s, and the technology is more familiar to us. So they had early automobiles, refrigerators, phonographs, and radios, and the horrid patent medicines effectively driven off the market around 1910 were no longer present. Sure -- but the roads were horrible -- slow, but even worse... dangerous even at the slow speeds. Race relations were merely subordination of anyone not WASP by WASPs (the Klan was powerful, which says much about the time) except in a few cities in which the crooked Irish-American pols bled everyone else. Educational standards were such that an eighth-grade education could be 'solid'. Workplace safety was a low concern. If industrial conditions had improved from the norm of the seventy-hour workweek and the forty-year lifespan for an industrial worker, they were still awful. Add to this, a glorious time does not end in a the protracted economic meltdown (a consequence of severe economic inequality) that culminates in the rise of the most demonic political leader in one of the most technologically-advanced, culturally-sophisticated, economically-developed nations of the time.

OK, technology is over-rated. I don't have an i-Phone, and I don't need one. If I had to choose between the technologies of the 1920s (except in medicine and transportation; penicillin may have saved my life, and I would not want to drive cars from before about 1970 except in a parade, and I use freeways if possible to travel long distances and have no nostalgia for Blood Alley) and modern institutions I would take the 1920s technologies and keep the modern institutions. I might not have been a victim of Jim Crow, homophobia, or male chauvinism at any time, but we can all relegate those to the trash-heap of history, can we not? I may have not gotten direct benefit from the GI Bill, but I certainly got indirect benefits through the better world. I have rarely worked in a business that gets unionized... but I am glad that we have had strong unions. We will need them again, especially if arrogant pricks like Donald Trump become the economic and political norm. (Donald Trump is the best recruiter for the Communist Party that the Communist Party ever had!)

After nearly four years of Donald Trump most of us we will be satisfied with a slogan like Let's make America GOOD again", or "Let's again do what we used to do WELL again for all of us". If we are to undo the welfare state, then we are going to need high-enough wages to ensure that people can save for old age and buy adequate life insurance. If we really want to develop ourselves as a people, we will need more formal education just so that people know better how to make reduced hours at work (an inevitable consequence of technological advances, including robotics) meaningful and so that (it will take K-14 education to do this) we have a populace sophisticated enough to reject the next demagogue, that most likely someone resembling Hugo Chavez, a left-wing demagogue. Formal learning does not itself create wisdom, but in modern times we need wisdom. So let's have most of our young adults take college-level survey courses in economics, philosophy, and psychology... and sides of Freshman Composition, calculus, comparative religion, literature, and music/art/cinema appreciation. Maybe a bit of foreign languages so that we can become more competent in English.

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.

(01-14-2018, 11:34 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: But -- in 2008 the President that we elect is clearly not of the Generation of '68.

That gen is born roughly over 1947-1962, Obama is in it, Clinton, Bush and Trump all were born in 1946, close enough.

Quote:The younger Bush seems to be little influenced by the culture of the 1960s

Yes he was (and so was Trump). The zeitgeist formed paradigms on both the Left and the Right. The paradigm isn't an ideology, it is was worldview as affected by living through a particular period of time. A conservative will learn very different lessons than a liberal, but both are affected by the times.

Quote:Barack Obama has his virtues, but he is no Boomer.

According the model he is. The model produces political generations, which are similar to, but not exactly the same as S&H generation. For example the Revolutionary generation had their political moment when they came to power, but it was no social moment. Yet the dominant generation that moment created, when they came to power created the Age of Jackson, which was a social moment.

(01-14-2018, 07:15 AM)Mikebert Wrote: 100 years ago we did not have an overvalued market. Last month, S&P500 valuation reached 1929 levels. The capitalist crisis appeared around 2006, a century after its first appearance in 1907. So if we get a crash which causes the economy to crater, they will be political demand for a 4T fix. Unlike in 1919, there still is a dominant generation in power, and so it is possible that this period can still map into a 4T. If not then it will end up as a second 2T.

I got here too, but not with your degree of analytical discipline. Mine was all gut, I'm afraid. I couldn't find a path that lead to a true resolution of conflicting views that were not fully in contrast or readily resolvable without a confluence of luck and timing. It still seems less than certain that a 4T resolution can be obtained, though DJT made it a lot more likely. If, as a nation, we were just floating along and playing to our two bases, there was little to trigger a clash that could lead anywhere. Now, there is, but is it properly focused and is it enough?

I'm still surprised by how little economics seems to play. The righteous anger is still reserved for the cultural issues, that can't be resolved through politics, and won't be resolved until the true believers pass from the scene. A 2T-like period might be all we can expect, though the underlying economic issues scream 4T at the top of their lungs. I suspect this won't get resolved while I'm still around.

Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.

(01-14-2018, 07:15 AM)Mikebert Wrote: 100 years ago we did not have an overvalued market. Last month, S&P500 valuation reached 1929 levels. The capitalist crisis appeared around 2006, a century after its first appearance in 1907. So if we get a crash which causes the economy to crater, they will be political demand for a 4T fix. Unlike in 1919, there still is a dominant generation in power, and so it is possible that this period can still map into a 4T. If not then it will end up as a second 2T.

I got here too, but not with your degree of analytical discipline. Mine was all gut, I'm afraid. I couldn't find a path that lead to a true resolution of conflicting views that were not fully in contrast or readily resolvable without a confluence of luck and timing. It still seems less than certain that a 4T resolution can be obtained, though DJT made it a lot more likely. If, as a nation, we were just floating along and playing to our two bases, there was little to trigger a clash that could lead anywhere. Now, there is, but is it properly focused and is it enough?

I'm still surprised by how little economics seems to play. The righteous anger is still reserved for the cultural issues, that can't be resolved through politics, and won't be resolved until the true believers pass from the scene. A 2T-like period might be all we can expect, though the underlying economic issues scream 4T at the top of their lungs. I suspect this won't get resolved while I'm still around.

Were economic issues screaming in the years leading up to 2008? Social issues were, remember how (opposition to) gay marriage was supposedly key to the Republican victory in 2004? Was the 2008 campaign about the economy, like 1992 was? I seem to recall the big issues were the Iraq war and health care. I don't believe economic inequality even moved into public consciousness until the Occupy movement in 2011. Contrast this with the muckrakers who had raised consciousness of the plight of the underclass by 1906, and certainly by the time of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in 1911 (and yet would be 20+ years before anyone took effective action).

I suggest that this cycles version of How the Other Half Lives (1890) is Nicked and Dimed (2000) and the Triangle (1911) equivalent in Katrina (2005). Donald Trumps anti-immigrant actions are the equivalent of anti-immigrant actions taken over 1921-24. So plot out the equivalent years:

1890 2000 (book pointing out the reality of life for the working poor)
1911 2005 (symbol of callous elite indifference to immigrants/people of color)
1919 2017 (peak in radicalization by S-C-model)
1922 2018 (anti-immigration actions)
1929 2020?
1933 2022?

regress them and extrapolate to 1929 gives the next point. We DO have a very overvalued stock market. If it goes into bear mode it will fall a great deal. A 15000+ drop in the market may be big enough to trigger another financial crisis, in which case it can fall to may the 6000's, which could be enough to trigger liquidationist investments by private capital outfits, and we could see some unsually high unemployment rates maybe even 15% or 20%.

I think economics has also been front and center for a long time. The nub of disagreement between the parties is Reaganomics/trickle-down economics, and this is also fused with the social and racial issues, because many white people resent paying taxes to help poor non-white people. The religious right naturally aligns with these white people and their culture fears. The democrats defend the old social programs and sometimes propose new ones (of which health care reform was a big one), while the Republicans defend tax cuts and deregulation. That remains the dispute around which party politics revolves, and has resolved for decades and decades. I certainly think the 2008 election was about the growing recession, and Obama spoke up about trickle-down economics and how it didn't work.

(01-14-2018, 07:15 AM)Mikebert Wrote: 100 years ago we did not have an overvalued market. Last month, S&P500 valuation reached 1929 levels. The capitalist crisis appeared around 2006, a century after its first appearance in 1907. So if we get a crash which causes the economy to crater, they will be political demand for a 4T fix. Unlike in 1919, there still is a dominant generation in power, and so it is possible that this period can still map into a 4T. If not then it will end up as a second 2T.

I got here too, but not with your degree of analytical discipline. Mine was all gut, I'm afraid. I couldn't find a path that lead to a true resolution of conflicting views that were not fully in contrast or readily resolvable without a confluence of luck and timing. It still seems less than certain that a 4T resolution can be obtained, though DJT made it a lot more likely. If, as a nation, we were just floating along and playing to our two bases, there was little to trigger a clash that could lead anywhere. Now, there is, but is it properly focused and is it enough?

I'm still surprised by how little economics seems to play. The righteous anger is still reserved for the cultural issues, that can't be resolved through politics, and won't be resolved until the true believers pass from the scene. A 2T-like period might be all we can expect, though the underlying economic issues scream 4T at the top of their lungs. I suspect this won't get resolved while I'm still around.

Were economic issues screaming in the years leading up to 2008? Social issues were, remember how (opposition to) gay marriage was supposedly key to the Republican victory in 2004? Was the 2008 campaign about the economy, like 1992 was? I seem to recall the big issues were the Iraq war and health care. I don't believe economic inequality even moved into public consciousness until the Occupy movement in 2011. Contrast this with the muckrakers who had raised consciousness of the plight of the underclass by 1906, and certainly by the time of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in 1911 (and yet would be 20+ years before anyone took effective action).

I suggest that this cycles version of How the Other Half Lives (1890) is Nicked and Dimed (2000) and the Triangle (1911) equivalent in Katrina (2005). Donald Trumps anti-immigrant actions are the equivalent of anti-immigrant actions taken over 1921-24. So plot out the equivalent years:

1890 2000 (book pointing out the reality of life for the working poor)
1911 2005 (symbol of callous elite indifference to immigrants/people of color)
1919 2017 (peak in radicalization by S-C-model)
1922 2018 (anti-immigration actions)
1929 2020?
1933 2022?

regress them and extrapolate to 1929 gives the next point. We DO have a very overvalued stock market. If it goes into bear mode it will fall a great deal. A 15000+ drop in the market may be big enough to trigger another financial crisis, in which case it can fall to may the 6000's, which could be enough to trigger liquidationist investments by private capital outfits, and we could see some unsually high unemployment rates maybe even 15% or 20%.

I agree with most of this, though 2018 anti immigrant actions are really still anti immigrant talk. That's part of the problem, I think. the ever-present media of all types tends to play on actions before they occur they play them off after they do. Omnipresent instantaneous feedback is a new phenomenon we're not fully able to understand to say nothing of control.

I fully agree that a stock market crash will trigger something massive, but I'm not sure what. What you posit is the rational response, but we seem to be post-rational, at least for now. Whatever happens, it won't be good, though it might be weird.

Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.

(01-15-2018, 03:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think economics has also been front and center for a long time. The nub of disagreement between the parties is Reaganomics/trickle-down economics, and this is also fused with the social and racial issues, because many white people resent paying taxes to help poor non-white people. The religious right naturally aligns with these white people and their culture fears. The democrats defend the old social programs and sometimes propose new ones (of which health care reform was a big one), while the Republicans defend tax cuts and deregulation. That remains the dispute around which party politics revolves, and has resolved for decades and decades. I certainly think the 2008 election was about the growing recession, and Obama spoke up about trickle-down economics and how it didn't work.

Your version resonates in Deep Blue States, and the opposite view resonates in Crimson Red States. The end result is stalemate, with one side invalidating the other and then being invalidated in the next term. It's almost a made-for-TV-movie by now, and not a particularly good one at that.

I'm hoping that Mike is right, and a 2020 swing back to the Dems will have legs. First, we have to get there.

Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.

(01-15-2018, 03:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think economics has also been front and center for a long time. The nub of disagreement between the parties is Reaganomics/trickle-down economics, and this is also fused with the social and racial issues, because many white people resent paying taxes to help poor non-white people. The religious right naturally aligns with these white people and their culture fears. The democrats defend the old social programs and sometimes propose new ones (of which health care reform was a big one), while the Republicans defend tax cuts and deregulation. That remains the dispute around which party politics revolves, and has resolved for decades and decades. I certainly think the 2008 election was about the growing recession, and Obama spoke up about trickle-down economics and how it didn't work.

Your version resonates in Deep Blue States, and the opposite view resonates in Crimson Red States. The end result is stalemate, with one side invalidating the other and then being invalidated in the next term. It's almost a made-for-TV-movie by now, and not a particularly good one at that.

I'm hoping that Mike is right, and a 2020 swing back to the Dems will have legs. First, we have to get there.

If that's what Mike says, then it gells with my predictions.

Probably a conservative turn is likely again as the 1T begins. But if this crisis finally establishes some progress again (after almost 40 years of virtually none), then the 1T could be "conservative" more like Ike than Reagan/Bush/Drump and preserve the progress. Perhaps the people, from younger and more diverse generations than ours, even in red states, will have had enough of trickle-down economics and all its associations.

Another astrological-cyclic look at the looming Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of Dec.2020, which times the biggest and most regular shift in the direction of Establishment policy, has convinced me that the party in power (the Republicans) could be overthrown, despite some other favorable indications for it (such as Drump's relatively high horoscope score, and the new moon before election's usual interpretations). The only times in which the party in power survived this conjunction, was when it was dominant for an extended period. It would have been tough to dislodge FDR after the Depression and Democratic Party dominance at that time (1940). Republicans after the civil war were very dominant too (1880, 1900), although elections were often close. The Democratic-Republican Party was the only viable party in 1820. In all other cases, the party in power lost the election that happened around the time of this conjunction; 7 out of 11 times. Since the party in power has not been such during an extended period, it could increase the chance of its ouster in 2020.

Both idiots and the value-locked are impossible to convince. The idiot has nothing to convince. The value-locked have nothing more to convince.

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.

One is economic. You look at issues like trickle down, deficit spending, whether we can afford safety nets, military spending, and the use of regulation to avoid abuse.

Others will look at the culture wars, at issues like guns, abortion and using the government to force culture change.

A third way involves class. Which group of people own government, and manipulate the government to their advantage? Are the red affinity for the upper classes, or the blue for the lower, abuse?

Another angle is race. Is the government used in favor or against a given race or cultural group? Do parties in fact ally with given groups?

And astrology? Religious motivation?

The above theories are not really complex enough to include all perspectives, all motivations. As such, it is hard to model something all inclusive. You have to form people into groups and assume simplistic motivations. Is it possible?

In abstract, you would favor non-action. Freedom is nobody stepping on anyone else.

In practice, somebody has to prevent anyone from stepping on anyone else. It is easy enough to abuse military power, or race, or government, or police powers, or a gender's place, ad nausium and etc... Certain forms of abuse should not be tolerated. Certain abuses have existed in the past.

The problem is agreeing on which abuses must be fought and when government interference is itself abuse. I have objection to libertarianism that assumes abuse has never existed and action needs not be taken. It has also been objectionable to enable corrective measures. Not every restriction need be good.

Astrology is not a religion, but an older-style science and art, and has little political stance if any, but might be useful for its insight into cycles and human character and psychology, being the most venerable such source. But it does go against conventional mechanistic explanations--- astrology being essentially based on metaphysics more than physics, and it has a bad reputation among many scientifically inclined people, who often can't see beyond mechanical causation and thus assume that astrology claims that planets and stars are causing events to happen, as if they were gods. As events move in cycles, perhaps the planetary tides gell with other cycles that are noticed by observers and scholars, such as the link between Uranus' 84-year cycle of revolution with the saeculum of modern times, especially considering Uranus' link to the USA, by traits and by timing.

Astrology is wonderful at showing the synthesis of historical events crossing diverse fields. And the times when planets have been discovered are very interesting. Apparently when a planet is discovered, it's nature and field of influence comes into human consciousness and society much more fully. That was especially true of the first one, Uranus in 1781. That was the year that the USA won its independence. The French Revolution followed. Many discoveries in electricity were made. Kant published the first "transcendental" philosophy in 1781. Uranium was discovered and named after the new planet. The invisible light spectrum was discovered, at the same time as the first invisible planet was discovered. Astrologers have noticed quite easily that Uranus in its cycles, aspects and horoscopes continues to correspond to revolutionary events and attitudes and to electricity and inventions and eccentric behavior.